Review power is not inherent; Full Bench reference jurisdiction under High Court rules did not support review applications.

The power of review is not inherent and exists only where conferred by statute or necessary implication; Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC create such power, while Section 151 CPC does not. A Full Bench answering a reference under Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules exercised only advisory and consultative jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction under Article 226. Because no statutory review power attached to that reference jurisdiction, authorities recognising inherent review in Article 226 matters were inapplicable. The review applications were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Miscellaneous Civil Application for review of a Full Bench judgment, rendered on questions referred by a Division Bench, was maintainable in the absence of any express statutory power of review and whether the Full Bench exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to attract an inherent power of review.

Analysis: The Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by statute or by necessary implication. It noted that Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 expressly confer review power on civil courts, while Section 151 of the Code does not create such power. The Full Bench, when answering a reference made under Rule 7 of Chapter-I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, was held to exercise only advisory and consultative jurisdiction to settle the legal questions referred to it. The original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remained with the Division Bench that decided the writ petitions after the reference was answered. Since the Full Bench was not exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in deciding the reference, and no statute conferred review power on it, the cited authorities on inherent review power in Article 226 proceedings were held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The review applications were not maintainable and were dismissed.

---